Caracterización de las Tendencias en los Modelos para Estudiar Problemas de Equipamiento y Adquisición de Tecnología
Resumen
Resumen
Estudio descriptivo de las tendencias en los modelos para evaluación de tecnologías de equipo. En él se caracterizan los modelos en el estado del arte y los de la práctica generalizada para evaluar tecnologías, también se exponen las debilidades de los diversos tipos de modelos y se destacan las opiniones de los expertos sobre los contenidos de teorías más efectivas para estudiar este tipo de problemas. En este trabajo se considera que el equipamiento es un caso específico de transferencia de tecnología, que es un problema muy amplio que puede incluir al reemplazo de equipos, la adopción y asimilación de tecnologías y algunos proyectos de innovación y desarrollo de tecnología. Siendo todos ellos problemas de planeación de la tecnología de la empresa y por tanto, complejos, extensos, que aún no están estructurados de una forma generalmente aceptada, definitiva, efectiva y cómo la tecnología es la principal fuente de ventaja competitiva, por ello es necesario determinar el estado del arte y las prácticas industriales con las que se aborda este tipo de problemas.
Descargas
Citas
Abdel-Kader M., Dugdales D. 2001. Evaluating Investments in Advanced Manufacturing Technology: A Fuzzy Set Theory Approach. British Accounting Review 33. Academic Press. Pp. 455-489.
Ananda J., Herat G. 2003. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics 5. Elsevier Science B.V. pp 13-26.
Bose U., Davey A., Olson D. 1997. Multiattribute Utility Methods in Group Decision Making: Past Applications and Potential for Inclusion in GDSS. The International Journal of Management Science, v. 25 n.6. Pergamon Elsevier Science Ltd. Oxford England. Pp. 691-706.
Boucher T., Gogus O. 1997. A Comparison between Two Multiattribute Decision Methodologies used in Capital Investment Decision Analysis. The Engineering Economist. V.42 n.3. pp. 179-201.
Bouyssou D.. 1992. On some properties of outranking relations based on a concordance-discordance principle. International Journal of Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Springer, Berlin. p. 94.
Bouyssou D., Vincke P. 1997. Ranking Alternatives on the Basis of Preference Relations: A Progress Report with Special Emphasis on Outranking Relations. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, v. 6. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Great Britain. p. 77-80.
Challis D., Samson D. 1996. A Strategic Framework for Technical Function Management in Manufacturing. Journal of Operations Management 14. Elsevier Science B.V. p.121-123.
Chiadamrong N., O’Brien C.O. 1999. Decision support tool for justifying alternative manufacturing and production control systems. International Journal of Production Economics, n. 60-61. Elsevier Science B.V.; pp. 177-186.
Chien-Lung Ch., Ching-Chien Ch. 1998. A method combining MAU and Fuzzy Logic for Cooperative Decision Making. Computers and Industrial Engineering. V. 35, N. 1-2. Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., London England.
Chifos C., Jain R.K. 1997. A comprehensive methodology for evaluating the commercial potential of technologies: The strategic technology evaluation method. International Journal of Industrial Engineering. 4(4). P. 220-225.
Choon-Woo L., Jen-Gwo-Chen J. 1995. Process plan selection via multiple atribute decision making approach and fuzzy quantification theory. International Journal of Industrial Engineering. 2(2). p.105-113.
Garud R., Ahlstrom D. 1997. Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14. Elsevier Science B.V. pp. 25-48.
Gogus O., Boucher T. 1998. Fuzzy NCIC. The Engineering Economist. V. 43, N. 3. P. 203-.
Hofman C. 1998. Investments in modern production technology and the cash flow-oriented EPQ-model. International Journal of Production Economics. Elsevier Science B.V. pp. 193-213.
Kakati M. 1997. Strategic Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. International Journal of Production Economics, Manufacturing Systems, Strategy and Design., v.53 n. 2. Elsevier Science B.V.
Kim J. K., et al. 1998. An Interactive Procedure for Multiple Criteria Decision Making with Incomplete Information. Computers and Industrial Engineering. Pergamon Press, Elsevier Science Lt.. G.B. p. 295.
Korpela J., Tuominen M., Valoaho M. 1998. An analytic hierarchy process-based approach to the strategic management of logistic service: An empirical study in the mechanical forest industry. International Journal of Production Economics 56-57. Elsevier Science. B.V. pp. 303-318.
Kylaheiko K. 1998. Making sense of technology: Toward a syntehesis between neoclassical and evolutionary approaches. International Journal of Production Economics. Elsevier Science B.V. v. 56-57, pp. 319-332.
Lavelle J.P., Sorenson G.E., Aye D.E. 1998. An integrated decision analysis tool for the economic evaluation and justification of computer integrated manufacturing technologies. International Journal of Industrial Engineering. 5(1), p. 59-67.
Lefley F., Morgan M. 1998. A new pragmatic approach to capital investment appraisal: The financial appraisal profile (FAP) model. International Journal of Production Economics. Elsevier Science B.V., N. 55, p. 321-325.
Lewis M., Boyer K. 2002. Factors impacting AMT implementation: an integrative and controlled study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 19. Elsevier Science B.V.. pp. 111-130.
Mechler E.C. 1999. Implementing Technological Change-A Systems Approach. Proceedings of the International Congress on Technology and Technology Exchange. International Technology Institute, ITI, Pittsburgh, Pa. USA.
Millet I. 1997. The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Industrial Engineering. John Wiley and Son’s, Ltd. Great Britain. v. 6, pp.41-51.
Mohd Y. R., Kok Poh Yee, Hashmi M.S.J. 2001. A preliminary study on the potential use of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to predict advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Pergamon Press, Elsevier Science Ltd. pp 421-427.
Mohanty R.P., Deshmukh S.G. 1998. Advanced manufacturing technology selection: A strategic model for learning and evaluation. International Journal of Production Economics 55. Elsevier Science B.V. pp 295-307.
Mullens M., Armacost R. 1995. A two stage approach to concept selection using the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Industrial Engineering.
Noghin V. 1997. Relative Importance of Criteria: A Quantitative Approach. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. V. 6. Pp. 355-363. John Wiley and Sons.
Salo A. A., Hämäläinen R.P. 1997. On the Measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons. Ltd. V. 6, 309.
Sawaragi Y, Nakamori Y. 1992. Shinayakana Systems Approach in Modeling and Decision Support. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, v. 1. Pp. 77-87. Taipei.
Segelod E. 1998. A note on the survey of project evaluation techniques in major corporations. International Journal of Production Economics. Elsevier Science B.V..V. 54. p. 207-210.
Triantaphyllou E. 1995. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, 2(1). Pp. 35-44.
Tung Y.A. 1998. Time Complexity and Consistency Issues in Using the AHP for Making Group Decisions. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, v. 7. Pp. 144-156. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Vargas L.G. 1991. Why the Analytic Hierarchy Process is Not like Multiattribute Utility Theory. Joseph M. Katz School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, PA. USA, p.53-59.
Wierzbicki A. P. 1997. On the Role of Intuition in Decision Making and Some Ways of Multicriteria Aid of Intuition. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, v. 6, 65-76. John Wiley and Son’s, Ltd. Great Britain.
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Todos los contenidos de CULCYT se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No Comercial 4.0 Internacional” (CC-BY-NC). Puede consultar desde aquí la versión informativa de la licencia.
Los autores/as que soliciten publicar en esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes: a) los/las autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra; y b) se permite y recomienda a los/las autores/as agregar enlaces de sus artículos en CULCYT en la página web de su institución o en la personal, debido a que ello puede generar intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de su obra publicada.
